HI FRED-THE GAME OF BLACKJACK IS SO DIFFERENT FOR ME NOW,USING THE KISS III COUNT VERSUS BASIC STRATEGY AND PROGRESSIVE BETTING TECHNIQUE. I'M WORKING AT TRYING TO MAKE THE DEALERS AND PIT BOSSES THINK I'M JUST "LUCK."THANK YOU FRED FOR WRITING BLACKJACK BLUEBOOK II-THE INFO YOU SHARED HAS TOTALLY CHANGED THE GAME FOR THE BETTER FOR ME!BEST WISHES-PROG

I have been using KISS II on 6 decks since the first of the year.My simple arithmetic says at a count of "22" the True Count is "2"The true count is "3" between KISS 23 & 27 depending upon the number of cards that have been played. (Check the discard tray) And the TC is "1" between a count of 17 to 21.The BBII betting strategy table shows minimum bet of 1 unit at 19 and max bet of 10 units at 23+.The ramp seems very steep. Other books I've read suggest max bets are made only when the TC is much higher than 3.At a TC of 3 the % advantage is only 1%. %Adv = -.5 +.5 [TC]What betting ramp have anyone been using?What max & min bets have you been using?How is it going?(I'm not doing very well, at high counts, over 23, I seem to lose more than I ever win!) :roll:

I BET BY THE BOOK-COUNT OF 20-3 UNITS COUNT OF 21-5 UNITS COUNT OF 22-8 UNIYTS COUNT OF 23-10 UNITSLAST WEEK I FOUND MYSELF UP 22 UNITS IN 15 MINUTES-1 SHOE-HAD TO LEAVE AND GO HOME-DIDN'T WANT TO GET "NOTICED"BEST OF LUCK-PROG

Not bad, PROG!I think this is covered in Fred's book, but do you know how KISS III compares to Hi-Low in EV? I am pretty new to counting and would like to step up my game. I think an unbalanced count is the way for me right now.

Sage -- Starting off the top of a six deck shoe at '9', a running count of '21' would be equal to a +2.0 true count at all times. A +3.0 true count (22.5 to 25.5 R/C) gives you about a 1.25% advantage (rather than 1%) due to the appropriate basic strategy departures at that point. The betting ramp in Bluebook II is steeper than most because it recommends a 1-to-10 spread rather than the more typical 1-to-12.

PJ -- Page 161 of the book has a 300 million hand simulation comparison between KISS III, Hi/Lo and KO. KISS III = +.70%. Hi/Lo = +.72% and KO = +.68%. KISS used the 21 indices from page 155. Hi/Lo used 75 computer generated indices because balanced systems are more adept at handling extreme counts, particularly the negative ones. KO used the "Full Matrix" version with 21 individual indices rather than the simpler, more popular "KO Preferred" (which would've done a bit worse). Also, keep in mind that pages 172 thru 177 of the Bluebook detail various refinements for KISS which will bring its performance up to around +.76% -- all else remaining unchanged

Skunk -- The surrender numbers on page 157 are indeed for the S17 game. In H17 shoe games, 15 vs. A becomes '13' and 16 vs. A becomes 'always'. Also, 17 vs. A and 8/8 vs. A both come into play with an index number of '12'. Finally, doubling down with 11 vs. A becomes '11' rather than '20'.

Hi Fred,I have learned to count using your book & KISS II. I like it, but want to move forward to use a more precise True Count for the various indexes. I have stayed with II rather than III because I want a higher correlation of my play %, rather than the big bets % correlation. A lot of BJ books use the true count as they develop the indexes for play and betting. Would you post the true count vs. the KISS count for the decks played in a 6 deck shoe? I understand that KISS 22 is always TC of 2. I have used the following formula for converting KISS II to True Count. Is it correct? KISS II = running count + a constant (9 in 6 decks) + 2 times decks played. The running count is true count times decks left.Thus at a KISS count of 27 with 3 decks played is the TC = 4?If possible please post a table with conversions or a formula to calculate them. Thank you, I have used your book as a bible for BJ and want to expand my knowledge. :lol:

SAGE -- OK, first -- KISS II and III start off the six deck shoe with an IRC (initial running count) of '9'. That makes 21 R/C equal to a +2.0 true count throughout the shoe. I had trouble following your verbage, but you'd figure it like this:

You add 2 x dealt decks because of those two black deuces that will cause your R/C to rise by 2 points per dealt deck if all cards get evenly distributed. The same answer will hold up anywhere in the shoe at 21 R/C. Above and below '21'R/C however, error starts to creep in. This error becomes greater the further from "21" your R/C gets.

Take an R/C of '25" for example. You'll virtually never see this only one deck into the shoe, so let's look at it two decks in.(RC'25') - (IRC '9" + 4) = 12 divided by 4 decks left = +3.0 T/C.

Instead, if you were 4 decks in getting near the shuffle, '25' would be:(RC '25") - (IRC '9" + 8) = 8 divided by 2 decks left = +4.0 T/C.

Just understand that a perfectly neutral R/C would be:'9' off the top'11' one deck in'13' two decks in'15' three decks in'17' four decks in, etc.

Now let's go the other way do an R/C of '18'. First, one deck into the shoe:(RC '18') - (IRC '9' + 2) = 7 divided by 5 decks left + +1.4 T/C.

Now for a major point. The main purpose of unbalanced counts is to eliminate the need for converting your R/C to the T/C before sizing your bets and playing your hands. The extra low cards in the count structure serve to link the R/C to the T/C. KISS and Red 7 do this more accurately than KO. If you calculate some error margins at various R/C's for KO, you'll see this. The sticky thing about KISS and Red 7 is that you have to distinguish between certain red and black cards.

Still, well designed unbalanced counts tend to lose only about .05% in EV compared to balanced counts of similar card tag complexity. Wanting to recoup all that by true count converting your unbalanced count would be, it seems to me, defeating their original purpose. That's why I included the "True Fudging" section on page 172 of the Bluebook. For its presentation, I computed all the error ranges of KISS R/C's at various shoe depths -- then recommended "fudging" adjustments to the index numbers depending upon where you are in the shoe. It really becomes quite simple.A very significant example is the Insurance index number of '25' (the same index number is also used for doubling with 8 vs. 5, doubling with 9 vs. 7, standing with 12 vs. 2 and doubling with A/8 vs. 4). The real T/C at which Insurance becomes a positive bet is +3.3. About the earliest you're likely to see an R/C of '25' is two decks into the shoe. As previously calculated, the T/C would be +3.0 there. But an R/C of '26' would be a +3.25 T/C -- just about enough for Insurance.On the other hand, when your four decks in with an R/C of '25", your T/C will be +4.0. But a '24' R/C would be +3.5 T/C.The upshot of it all is to first know that '25' is your Insurance index number -- then that you should "fudge" that required number one point upward (to '26') if it's early in the shoe and fudge it downward one point (to '24") if your'e late in the shoe. Near mid-shoe, '25' is just fine.

Doing this is virtually as accurate as true count converting a balanced system once you boil out the error residue from "estimating" the decks in the discard tray and "rounding off" your multiplication or division. By being familiar with how much to "fudge", you know from previous calculation that you're going to be pratically "dead nuts on" throughout the shoe.

To be just a bit more specific, it turns out that all R/C's between '19' and '23' are close enough to leave alone. Indices from '24' to '26' should be fudged exactly as described. And indices of '27' or higher need to be fudged two points upward early in the shoe (two decks in), just one point upward rather eraly (say 2.5 decks in), right on the number halfway thru, downard a point getting late and downward two points approaching the shuffle. All this is spelled out in more detail in the book. By the way, the same kind of fudging should be done for bet sizing.

One last point. Unfortunately, lower R/C's ('15' and below) lose a lot of their T/C correlation going thru the shoe. Due to the fact that these will always involve a 1 unit bet, it's a minor point -- EXCEPT for 16 against a 10. It's sternly suggested that this hand be played in T/C mode at all times. But that's actually a piece of cake. All you need to do is become familiar with what R/C is "normal" at various shoe levels. If your current R/C is normal or below, hit any kind of 16 vs. 10. If it's at all above normal, stand (incidentally, you can play 12 vs. 4 exactly the same way, although it won't matter measurably).

Even though I've been playing the balanced Wong Halves Count since 1980, I have come to see that all that complexity is overkill. I occasionally play the KISS III with fudging just for yuks and it's so-o-o-o- much smoother. Works just fine too.

I'm surprised that there is only one update to the non-surrender indices.

You updated the 11 v A index so that we double at '11' or higher. Just to clarify... According to basic strategy I'm to double all 11 vs A at all times. Now I hit when the count is <'11' and double when >='11'?

Similarly, according to BS I'm to double A/8 v 6 at all times but now I will only hit when the count is <'19' but will double when the count is >='19'.

I just want to make sure I'm interpreting things correctly before committing the table of index numbers to memory.

Finally, there are a few conflicting numbers that are causing me some trouble. Does surrender take priority over the other advantage index numbers?

For example 15 v 10. The advantage strategy index says stand when the count is >'27'. But the surrender strategy says to surrender when the count is >'12'. And basic strategy says to always surrender 15 v 10 (except when it is composed of 7-8 according to the Wizzard of Odds, then just hit).

SKUNK -- In an H17 shoe game, the index for A/7 vs. 2 and A/8 vs. 6 both become "13". I neglected to mention these in my last post since I've not dealt with them before and am computing them on the fly.

Remember though, "constant" indices for unbalanced counts are merely all around compromises. Notice that if you were dealt A/8 vs. 6 heads up off the top of the shoe, your R/C would be only "10" (using KISS II). Following the index number of "13", you wouldn't double -- technically a mistake. Problem is, if you index number was "10', you'd be doubling later in the shoe when you shouldn't be. When you've got a made hand, I think it's better to err on the side of standing rather than erring with a double. The actual count to make both these doubles at is -0.5 T/C rather than +1 T/C in the S17 game

Finally, surrendering does indeed override hitting/standing. So you would never have to think about whether to stand or hit with 15 vs. 10 if the R/C is over the surrender number -- just surrender it.

Fred,Thanks for the explaination.I'll review the numbers. I think I must agree, perhaps the small extra gain is not worth the extra effort it requires. But I wanted to review other index plays when the TC was other than 2.

Using the formula of KISS vs TC I developed a table that helps me understand the "fudge" issue.It is more complicated to write about it & try to explain it in words than it actually is when you look at the numbers. They are straight forward and have ramps that are logical. Thus you don't need to memorize lots of numbers, just a few key numbers and a feel for the value of the ramps.

Anyone using the KISS count system should do the exercise of developing the table. It helps to understand the rational behind the system and gives confidence to the unbalanced approach.Thanks Fred........

Thanks for updating the KISS II indices for H17. I"m going to make some flash cards right now. I'm going to try laying out each hand with actual cards and then take a digital photo. Then I'm going to take a picture with the index number printed below. Then I'll just run through the pictures using a slideshow on my computer.

Do you have any idea at what count one might play the Lucky Ladies side bet? Would the number be different for KISS II vs KISS III?

I will look at the numbers. First glance they look good.......The table is easier to construct, review and use if the left column is the True Count and the top row is decks played (rather than decks remaining, decks played you can look at the discard tray and use the value directly)Then the numbers inside the table are the KISS running counts. Also since the key TC numbes are only "0" and less, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4 or more, the table is smaller and quite simple. Cheers :lol:

I'm just curious as to how long it took people to learn KISS II-III from scratch and interested in different peoples learning methods :?: , I've shied a way from learning card counting as I get by just using a progression, and also its not exactly Las Vegas here as there is only 2 casino left here that are none CSM's and one of thoses has got them, they've just not reinstalled them yet after they moved to their new location, ( as they had them in their old location and as they cost about £1200+ its only a matter of time ) so taking the time and effort out to learn and practice so I can play at may be only the 1-2 casinos left, I'm not sure is it really worth the effort as also I can't exactly "Walkaway" from tables regularly as generally there is only 2 tables running ( 3 when busy ) and getting a seat at a other table might not be possible as they are rammed or practical to go table hoping, and continuous card counting at the one casino will eventually may be cause suspicion, but as I have Casino Vérité any way, that I use for testing a mish mash of various wagering progressions, I'm thinking of giving it a go, and using it may be now and then using my progression as cover, when the situation arises, Also Fred ( if your reading this ) please could you do me Advantage Strategy Index Numbers for the 6 deck European blackjack strategy: http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/strategy/european.html :?: its just so I have it clear in my head I am using the correct play, thanking you for your attention, take care and be lucky

Colin, When you lose both bets to a dealer's blackjack, then double with 11 vs. 10 @ "24" or higher, and never double against an Ace. Play 8/8 just like any other 16 against a 10 or Ace, and always hit A/A against an Ace. With your soft hands against small up-cards, always hit A/6 or less and always stand with A/7 (explained on pg. 58 of the Bluebook).

this is apparently ENHC. You can split or double, and if the dealer gives himself a natural when he deals his hole card, you can lose both bets. Some casinos only take the original bet on a dealer natural, but if they take the double/split bets as well, it changes basic strategy a good bit since you will never double when a blackjack is possible, say 11 vs A.

And when you get a Blackjack v A, the dealer will ask do you want to take even money :?: you would only take it at 25+( As insurance is not offered for any thing else, this is the only time that index rule applies, you do NOT lose your stake even if the dealer has a blackjack )

And also a possible other :arrow: You say I should double down 11 v 10 at 24+ ( Not on the chart on page 155 ) & never double 10 / 11 against an Ace at 28+ / 20+ :?:

I am currently using the CVBJ program and having diffuculty adapting it to KISS III. Has anyone elso attached the KISS III strategy to this program? I think my problem lies in the GROUPS section. Any help?

Colin, With ENHC, since there's an extra 30% chance you'll automatically lose two bets two bets against a dealer's Ace if you double down, you should never do it. So forget about doubling 11 vs. A @ '20'. Insurance and even money are the same bet, so if you can only insure when you have blackjack -- then '25' is the number to start doing it at. The confusing, low index numbers for standing with stiffs vs. a 2, 3, 4 and 6 mean that if you have 13 against a deuce for example, you should normally stand. But if your count drops below '7', then hit it.